sir fly said:
Having played both a fair bit, I think it's interesting to compare both chess and poker to cycling.
Chess is a game of perfect information. You have full viability over all of your opponents pieces, options, etc. Chess players may & will be surprised by a novelty or brilliancy, but the opponent has every opportunity to see it coming and it's their own fault for not being better prepared.
Poker, on the other hand, is a game of partial / imperfect information. You have limited knowledge of your opponents strengths / weaknesses. You make your move based on the limited info you have.
Compared to cycling, I think a GT is more like a chess game. The strategies are mostly unveiled, and the strongest usually wins. The losers are rarely too surprised when they lose time on a MTF.
I think of classics more as a poker game. You don't really know how strong your opponent is, or if the peloton will chase the break, or if there will be a decisive crash. You have a bit of an idea of the right course of action, based on how your opponents have raced the race so far, but maybe they are bluffing. Or maybe they are acting weak when they are strong. It's much more a game of imperfect information. This makes it no less tactical -- in some ways it makes it more tactical.